Long-term results of photodynamic therapy for choroidal neovascularization in Japanese patients with pathologic myopia

Chorioretinal Atrophic Lesions Evolution in Patients with Quiescent Myopic Choroidal Neovascularization Followed for More Than 10 Years

Purpose

To evaluate the progression of chorioretinal atrophic areas associated with myopic choroidal neovascularization (CNV) in high myopic patients followed by a minimum period of 10 years.

Patients and Methods

Patients with myopic CNV lesions that achieved clinical and structural remissions over 10 years of follow-up were included. Medical records were reviewed for CNV characterization and treatment, best-corrected visual acuity at baseline (BCVA0), immediately after the last treatment (BCVA1) and at the latest visit (BCVA2). Fundus autofluorescence (FAF) was used to quantify the amount of atrophic area increase per year associated with the treated myopic CNV lesion. The first FAF performed after treatment suspension (FAF1) was compared with the most recent exam (FAF2).

Results

Thirty-six eyes from 36 patients were included. Mean total follow-up was 12.38 ± 2.68 years. Mean number of intravitreal injections (IVI) was 12.50 ± 12.40 and 25% of the eyes had previous treatment with photodynamic therapy (PDT). Mean improvement between BCVA0 and BCVA1 was 5.58 ± 15.98 letters (p < 0.001). However, a drop of 8.03 ± 12.25 letters was noticed between BCVA1 and BCVA2. FAF1 was 6.34 ± 4.92mm2 and increased to 9.88 ± 7.56mm2 (3.54 ± 3.79mm2 variation p < 0.001). The mean growth rate of the atrophic area was 0.89 ± 0.84mm2 per year. BCVA2 negatively correlated with FAF2 (k = -0.498, p = 0.002) being worse in patients with higher atrophic area growth rate (k = -0.341, p = 0.042). Eyes treated with PDT needed less IVI (5.89 ± 5.21 vs 14.70 ± 13.36, p = 0.008) but had larger FAF1 (9.80 ± 5.33 vs 5.19 ± 4.27, p = 0.013) and FAF2 (16.05 ± 7.10 vs 7.83 ± 6.63, p = 0.003). Hypothyroidism was associated with higher atrophy growth rate (1.55 ± 1.15 vs 0.73 ± 0.67, p = 0.016).

Conclusion

This research demonstrates the importance of chorioretinal atrophy progression after myopic CNV lesions regression and its impact on visual prognosis, reporting a mean yearly growth of 0.89 mm2 in atrophic areas. Previous treatment with PDT and hypothyroidism were identified as risk factors associated with larger atrophic areas and worse visual outcomes.

Long-term outcomes of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy with and without posterior scleral reinforcement on myopic maculopathy in myopic choroidal neovascularization eyes

BACKGROUND

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy is used for myopic choroidal neovascularization (mCNV). Patchy chorioretinal atrophy (pCRA) enlargement has been reported in mCNV cases associated with vision loss. Our aim was to compare the long-term effectiveness of anti-VEGF therapy alone versus anti-VEGF followed by posterior scleral reinforcement (PSR) in controlling myopic maculopathy in mCNV eyes.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of the medical records of 95 high myopia patients (refractive error ≥ 6.00 diopters, axial length ≥ 26.0 mm) with mCNV. Patients were treated with anti-VEGF alone (group A) or anti-VEGF followed by PSR (group B). The following data were collected: refractive error, best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), ophthalmic fundus examination, ocular coherence tomography and ocular biometry at 12 and 24 months pre- and postoperatively. The primary outcomes were changes in pCRA and BCVA.

RESULTS

In 26 eyes of 24 patients, the mean pCRA size significantly increased from baseline (0.88 ± 1.69 mm2) to 12 months (1.57 ± 2.32 mm2, t = 3.249, P = 0.003) and 24 months (2.17 ± 2.79 mm2, t = 3.965, P = 0.001) postoperatively. The increase in perilesional pCRA in group B (n = 12) was 98.2% and 94.2% smaller than that in group A (n = 14) at 12 and 24 months (Beta 0.57 [95% CI 0.01, 191 1.13], P = 0.048). In group B, 7 eyes (58.3%) gained more than 2 lines of BCVA compared with only 4 eyes (28.6%) in group A at 24 months.

CONCLUSION

Anti-VEGF therapy followed by PSR achieved better outcomes than anti-VEGF therapy alone in controlling the development of myopic maculopathy in mCNV and may constitute a better treatment option by securing a better long-term VA outcome.

Comparison of antivascular endothelial growth factor treatment for myopia choroidal neovascularisation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy for myopia choroidal neovascularisation (CNV), and to compare the efficacy of two different anti-VEGF retreatment criteria.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to 31 July 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anti-VEGF with sham, photodynamic therapy (PDT) or PDT combination therapy in patients with myopia CNV were reviewed and selected. RCTs comparing visual acuity (VA) stabilisation or disease activity as anti-VEGF retreatment criteria were also included in the study.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently conducted data extraction and quality assessment. We used a random-effects model for all analyses. Primary outcomes included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central foveal thickness. Secondary outcomes included number of patients who gained more than three lines in BCVA, number of anti-VEGF injections and ocular adverse event (AE).

RESULTS

Seven RCTs involving 1007 patients were included. Compared with sham and PDT therapy, anti-VEGF therapy achieved better BCVA gains of -0.28 logMAR (95% CI -0.36 to -0.20, p<0.00001) and -0.14 logMAR (95% CI -0.17 to -0.10, p<0.00001), respectively. Both ranibizumab and bevacizumab improved patients' vision better than PDT therapy and no definitive increased risk of ocular AE was observed. Analysis of two small RCTs showed that PDT combination therapy had similar visual improvement and needed fewer anti-VEGF injections compared with anti-VEGF monotherapy (weighted mean difference (WMD)=1.30; 95% CI 1.24 to 1.37, p<0.00001). Anti-VEGF retreatment guided by disease activity criteria resulted in comparable visual improvement and reduced anti-VEGF injections compared with retreatment guided by VA stabilisation (WMD=0.83; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.25, p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-VEGF therapy is effective and well-tolerated for myopia CNV patients. Anti-VEGF retreatment guided by disease activity criteria can achieve comparable efficacy and potentially reduce anti-VEGF injections.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021292806.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of myopia management: A systematic review

The rising prevalence of myopia is a major global public health concern. Economic evaluation of myopia interventions is critical for maximizing the benefits of treatment and the healthcare system. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of interventions for treating myopia. Five databases were searched - Embase, Emcare, PubMed, Web of Science, and ProQuest - from inception to July 2022 and a total of 2,099 articles were identified. After careful assessments, 6 studies met the eligibility criteria. The primary outcomes of this systematic review were costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The secondary outcomes included utility values and net monetary benefits (NMB). One study determined the cost-effectiveness of photorefractive screening plus treatment with 0.01% atropine, 2 studies examined cost-effectiveness of corneal refractive surgery, and 3 studies evaluated cost-effectiveness of commonly used therapies for pathologic myopia. Corneal refractive surgeries included laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK), femtosecond laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK), photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), and small-incision lenticule extraction (SMILE). Interventions for pathologic myopia included ranibizumab, conbercept, and photodynamic therapy (PDT). At an incremental cost of NZ$ 18 (95% CI 15, 20) (US$ 11) per person, photorefractive screening plus 0.01% atropine resulted in an ICER of NZ$ 1,590/QALY (US$ 1,001/QALY) (95% CI NZ$ 1,390, 1,791) for an incremental QALY of 0.0129 (95% CI 0.0127, 0.0131). The cost of refractive surgery in Europe ranged from €3,075 to €3,123 ([US$4,046 to $4,109 - adjusted to 2021 inflation). QALYs associated with these procedures were 23 (FS-LASIK) and 24 (SMILE and PRK) with utility values of 0.8 and ICERs ranging from approximately €14 (US$17)/QALY to €19 (US$23)/QALY. The ICER of LASIK was US$683/diopter gained (inflation-adjusted). The ICER of ranibizumab and PDT were £8,778 (US$12,032)/QALY and US$322,460/QALY respectively, with conbercept yielding a saving of 541,974 RMB (US$80,163)/QALY, respectively. The use of 0.01% atropine and corneal refractive surgery were cost-effective for treating myopia. Treating pathologic myopia with ranibizumab and conbercept were more cost-effective than PDT. Prevention of myopia progression is more cost-effective than treating pathologic myopia.

A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for myopic macular degeneration

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

RANIBIZUMAB VERSUS VERTEPORFIN PHOTODYNAMIC THERAPY IN ASIAN PATIENTS WITH MYOPIC CHOROIDAL NEOVASCULARIZATION: BRILLIANCE, a 12-Month, Randomized, Double-Masked Study

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

Ranibizumab 0.5 mg administered over 12 months was efficacious and well-tolerated in Asian patients with visual impairment due to myopic choroidal neovascularization. Ranibizumab treatment guided by visual acuity stabilization or disease activity criteria resulted in statistically superior efficacy compared with verteporfin photodynamic therapy.

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of 2 dosing regimens of ranibizumab 0.5 mg versus verteporfin photodynamic therapy in Asian patients with visual impairment due to myopic choroidal neovascularization.

Highlights from the 2019 International Myopia Summit on 'controversies in myopia'

Myopia is an emerging public health issue with potentially significant economic and social impact, especially in East Asia. However, many uncertainties about myopia and its clinical management remain. The International Myopia Summit workgroup was convened by the Singapore Eye Research Institute, the WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific and the International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness in 2019. The aim of this workgroup was to summarise available evidence, identify gaps or unmet needs and provide consensus on future directions for clinical research in myopia. In this review, among the many 'controversies in myopia' discussed, we highlight three main areas of consensus. First, development of interventions for the prevention of axial elongation and pathologic myopia is needed, which may require a multifaceted approach targeting the Bruch's membrane, choroid and/or sclera. Second, clinical myopia management requires co-operation between optometrists and ophthalmologists to provide patients with holistic care and a tailored approach that balances risks and benefits of treatment by using optical and pharmacological interventions. Third, current diagnostic technologies to detect myopic complications may be improved through collaboration between clinicians, researchers and industry. There is an unmet need to develop new imaging modalities for both structural and functional analyses and to establish normative databases for myopic eyes. In conclusion, the workgroup's call to action advocated for a paradigm shift towards a collaborative approach in the holistic clinical management of myopia.

Myopic maculopathy: Current status and proposal for a new classification and grading system (ATN)

Myopia is a highly frequent ocular disorder worldwide and pathologic myopia is the 4th most common cause of irreversible blindness in developed countries. Pathologic myopia is especially common in East Asian countries. Ocular alterations associated with pathologic myopia, especially those involving the macular area-defined as myopic maculopathy-are the leading causes of vision loss in patients with pathologic myopia. High myopia is defined as the presence of a highly negative refractive error (>-6 to -8 diopters) in the context of eye elongation (26-26.5 mm). Although the terms high myopia and pathologic myopia are often used interchangeably, they do not refer to the same eye disease. The two key factors driving the development of pathologic myopia are: 1) elongation of the axial length and 2) posterior staphyloma. The presence of posterior staphyloma, which is the most common finding in patients with pathologic myopia, is the key differentiating factor between high and pathologic myopia. The occurrence of staphyloma will, in most cases, eventually lead to other conditions such as atrophic, traction, or neovascular maculopathy. Posterior staphyloma is for instance, responsible for the differences between a myopic macular hole (MH)-with and without retinal detachment-and idiopathic MH. Posterior staphyloma typically induces retinal layer splitting, leading to foveoschisis in myopic MH, an important differentiating factor between myopic and emmetropic MH. Myopic maculopathy is a highly complex disease and current classification systems do not fully account for the numerous changes that occur in the macula of these patients. Therefore, a more comprehensive classification system is needed, for several important reasons. First, to more precisely define the disease stage to improve follow-up by enabling clinicians to more accurately monitor changes over time, which is essential given the progressive nature of this condition. Second, unification of the currently-available classification systems would establish standardized classification criteria that could be used to compare the findings from international multicentric studies. Finally, a more comprehensive classification system could help to improve our understanding of the genetic origins of this disease, which is clearly relevant given the interchangeable-but erroneous-use of the terms high and pathologic myopia in genetic research.

Pharmacotherapy of Myopic Choroidal Neovascularization

BACKGROUND

Myopic choroidal neovascularization (CNV) is a common cause of central visual loss in patients with high myopia, and the most common form of CNV in younger individuals. Pharmacologic therapy is the current mainstay of treatment of these patients.

METHODS

Review of pharmacological treatment options for myopic CNV, which primarily involves intravitreal administration of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) agents.

RESULTS

At this time, anti-VEGF therapy agents are the first-line therapy in these patients. Comparative trials have not identified any major differences in treatment outcomes between aflibercept, bevacizumab, and ranibizumab. Only ranibizumab is approved for this indication in the US. Best visual outcomes are associated with younger age, smaller lesion size, and absence of chorioretinal atrophy.

CONCLUSION

Anti-VEGF therapy is generally very effective in the treatment of myopic CNV.

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy for the treatment of myopic choroidal neovascularization

Myopic choroidal neovascularization (CNV) is a sight-threatening condition which occurs in eyes with myopia, particularly in those with pathologic myopia. It is the most common cause of CNV among patients younger than 50 years. Hemorrhage and exudation from the CNV lesion may eventually result in scarring or chorioretinal atrophy. While myopic CNV was previously treated with focal laser photocoagulation or photodynamic therapy (PDT), the current treatment of choice is anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents. Many studies have demonstrated the efficacy of intravitreal anti-VEGF agents in the treatment of myopic CNV. The RADIANCE study reported that intravitreal ranibizumab was superior to PDT in eyes with myopic CNV (at 3 months, both groups receiving intravitreal ranibizumab gained 10.5 and 10.6 letters vs 2.2 letters among patients receiving PDT). In addition, the study demonstrated similar visual outcomes in eyes treated on the basis of visual acuity stabilization or disease activity criteria. Other clinical studies have provided evidence for the efficacy of ranibizumab and aflibercept in the treatment of myopic CNV. This review addresses the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and imaging characteristics of myopic CNV, and discusses the evidence for the efficacy of anti-VEGF agents as compared to laser photocoagulation and PDT.

Current and emerging treatment options for myopic choroidal neovascularization

Choroidal neovascularization (CNV) is the main cause of visual impairment in highly myopic patients younger than 50 years of age. There are different treatments for myopic CNV (mCNV), with 5- to 10-year outcomes currently. Chorioretinal atrophy is still the most important determinant factor for visual outcome. The purpose of this study is to provide an overview of the current treatments for mCNV, including laser, surgical management, verteporfin photodynamic therapy, and mainly anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy. Emerging treatment options are also discussed.

Choroidal neovascularization secondary to pathological myopia

Myopic choroidal neovascularization (mCNV), one of the complications of pathological myopia, is also one of the leading causes of visual impairment worldwide. The socioeconomic impact of mCNV in Asian countries is particularly significant due to the rising incidence of pathological myopia. There have been major advances in the treatment of mCNV in the past few years. Previous treatment modalities, such as thermal laser photocoagulation and photodynamic therapy, aimed to prevent vision loss; however, newer modalities such as intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents have been shown to successfully restore vision in many patients. Challenges remain as long term safety and efficacy of anti-VEGF agents are unknown. This article aims to provide a review of the literature of the epidemiology, progression, clinical course and treatment modalities as well as areas of future developments related to myopic CNV.

Myopic choroidal neovascularisation: current concepts and update on clinical management

Choroidal neovascularisation (CNV) is a common vision-threatening complication of myopia and pathological myopia. Despite significant advances in understanding the epidemiology, pathogenesis and natural history of myopic CNV, there is no standard definition of myopic CNV and its relationship to axial length and other myopic degenerative changes. Several treatments are available to ophthalmologists, but with the advent of new therapies there is a need for further consensus and clinical management recommendations. Verteporfin photodynamic therapy has been an established treatment for subfoveal myopic CNV for many years, but this treatment does not restore visual acuity and is associated with long-term chorioretinal atrophy. More recently, clinical trials investigating the efficacy and safety of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents in patients with myopic CNV have demonstrated substantial visual acuity gains and quality of life increases compared with photodynamic therapy. These enhanced outcomes provide updated evidence-based clinical management guidelines of myopic CNV, and increase the need for a generally accepted definition for myopic CNV. This review critically summarises the latest myopic CNV literature in the context of clinical experience and recommends a myopic CNV treatment algorithm.

Management of Choroidal Neovascularization Secondary to Pathological Myopia: The Era of Changes

Choroidal neovascularization (CNV) secondary to pathological myopia is an important cause of significant visual impairment in young adults. High myopia is particularly prevalent in Asian population. New scientific contributions have been made to the understanding of high myopia and myopic CNV. Treatment for myopic CNV has previously relied on photodynamic therapy, laser photocoagulation, and submacular surgery. The treatment outcomes from these modalities are, however, controversial. The introduction of antiangiogenic agents including bevacizumab and ranibizumab has brought the treatment of myopic CNV into a new era. The purpose of this review was to provide an overview of the natural history of myopic CNV, the prognostic factors, and the various treatment options including laser photocoagulation and photodynamic therapy, with particular attention on antiangiogenic agents.

RADIANCE: a randomized controlled study of ranibizumab in patients with choroidal neovascularization secondary to pathologic myopia

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of ranibizumab 0.5 mg, guided by visual acuity (VA) stabilization or disease activity criteria, versus verteporfin photodynamic therapy (vPDT) in patients with visual impairment due to myopic choroidal neovascularization (CNV).

DESIGN

Phase III, 12-month, randomized, double-masked, multicenter, active-controlled study.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients (N = 277) with visual impairment due to myopic CNV.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to receive ranibizumab on day 1, month 1, and thereafter as needed guided by VA stabilization criteria (group I, n = 106); ranibizumab on day 1 and thereafter as needed guided by disease activity criteria (group II, n=116); or vPDT on day 1 and disease activity treated with ranibizumab or vPDT at investigators' discretion from month 3 (group III, n = 55).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Mean average best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) change from baseline to month 1 through months 3 (primary) and 6, mean BCVA change and safety over 12 months.

RESULTS

Ranibizumab treatment in groups I and II was superior to vPDT based on mean average BCVA change from baseline to month 1 through month 3 (group I: +10.5, group II: +10.6 vs. group III: +2.2 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] letters; both P<0.0001). Ranibizumab treatment guided by disease activity was noninferior to VA stabilization-guided retreatment based on mean average BCVA change from baseline to month 1 through month 6 (group II: +11.7 vs. group I: +11.9 ETDRS letters; P<0.00001). Mean BCVA change from baseline to month 12 was +13.8 (group I), +14.4 (group II), and +9.3 ETDRS letters (group III). At month 12, 63.8% to 65.7% of patients showed resolution of myopic CNV leakage. Patients received a median of 4.0 (group I) and 2.0 (groups II and III) ranibizumab injections over 12 months. No deaths or cases of endophthalmitis and myocardial infarction occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Ranibizumab treatment, irrespective of retreatment criteria, provided superior BCVA gains versus vPDT up to month 3. Ranibizumab treatment guided by disease activity criteria was noninferior to VA stabilization criteria up to month 6. Over 12 months, individualized ranibizumab treatment was effective in improving and sustaining BCVA and was generally well tolerated in patients with myopic CNV.

Comparison of foveal-sparing with foveal-involving photodynamic therapy for myopic choroidal neovascularization

PURPOSE

To evaluate the visual outcomes of choroidal neovascularization (CNV) secondary to pathological myopia in eyes treated with photodynamic therapy (PDT), and to determine the effect of lesion location and foveal involvement on visual prognosis.

METHODS

Interventional case series of 24 consecutive patients with myopic CNV treated with PDT. The main outcome measure was final LogMAR visual acuity (VA).

RESULTS

Of 24 eyes, the CNV lesion was subfoveal in 11 and extrafoveal in 13. Overall, the mean LogMAR VA at 24 months was 0.72. Extrafoveal CNV lesions achieved significantly better final VA compared with subfoveal CNV (LogMAR 0.45 vs 1.05, P=0.012). Eyes with extrafoveal CNV lesions were subdivided into foveal-sparing PDT (where the PDT laser spot did not involve the foveal center) and foveal-involved PDT (where the PDT laser covered the fovea). At all time points, the group with foveal-sparing PDT had significantly better VA compared with the foveal-involved group. The final LogMAR VA for the foveal-sparing PDT group was 0.26 compared with 1.00 for the foveal-involved PDT group (P=0.003). At 24 months, 77.8% of foveal-sparing PDT cases achieved VA of ≥ 20/40, compared with 25% of foveal-involved PDT cases and 9.1% of subfoveal CNV lesions (P=0.006).

CONCLUSION

For patients with myopic CNV, foveal-sparing PDT results in significantly better long-term visual outcomes compared with those with foveal-involved PDT. Foveal-sparing PDT may be of value for treatment of myopic CNV patients who are not suitable for treatment with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections.

Factors affecting visual outcome of myopic choroidal neovascularization treated with verteporfin photodynamic therapy

AIM

To evaluate the visual outcomes of choroidal neovascularization (CNV) secondary to pathological myopia and the impact of novel risk factors affecting the final visual outcome.

METHODS

Interventional case series of 18 consecutive patients with pathological myopia treated with photodynamic therapy (PDT). Inclusion criteria were spherical equivalent -6D or worse or features of pathological myopia on retinal examination. The main outcome measure was final best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA).

RESULTS

Of 18 eyes, 13 (72.2%) avoided moderate visual loss (≥3 lines of LogMAR BCVA) and 5 eyes (27.8%) improved by at least 1 line after 1 year. Patients with LogMAR BCVA ≤0.3 (Snellen equivalent 20/40) at one year were younger than those with BCVA >0.3 (mean age 39.0 vs 61.6 years, P=0.001). A higher proportion of eyes with greatest linear dimension (GLD) of ≤1000µm avoided moderate visual loss (100% vs 50%, P=0.026). Among patients who were treated within 2 weeks of visual symptoms, 88.9% avoided the loss of 3 or more lines compared to 55.6% for those who presented later. The mean improvement in LogMAR BCVA of those with GLD ≤1000µm was +0.12 compared to a loss of 0.55 LogMAR units for those with GLD >1000µm (P=0.02). Visual outcomes were not associated with gender or refractive error.

CONCLUSION

Good visual outcome in myopic CNV is associated with younger age, smaller lesion size and earlier initiation of treatment. These factors are relevant for ophthalmologists considering treatment options for myopic CNV.

[Therapy of myopic choroidal neovascularization]

Recently published studies have shown that myopic choroidal neovascularization (mCNV) is efficiently treated by anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) drugs. Within a prospective executive study, photodynamic therapy failed to prove a significant difference over the duration of 2 years. Although a systematic evaluation of different retreatment algorithms still has to be done the administration of single injections depending on specialist assessment of morphological changes, predominantly spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) and fundus, has achieved a marked visual improvement. The experience of treating age-related macular degeneration should not be simply transferred to mCNV and an individual approach, not only for female patients of childbearing age, is necessary.

Two-year outcomes of intravitreal bevacizumab for choroidal neovascularization in Japanese patients with pathologic myopia

PURPOSE

To determine the 2-year results of intravitreal bevacizumab in highly myopic eyes with choroidal neovascularization (CNV).

METHODS

An open-label, consecutive, interventional case series. Seventy-five eyes of 69 consecutive Japanese patients with either subfoveal or nonsubfoveal myopic CNVs were studied. The eyes were treated with intravitreal bevacizumab and followed-up for at least 2 years. The best-corrected visual acuities at the baseline in eyes with subfoveal CNV were compared with that in eyes with nonsubfoveal CNV at 2 years after the intravitreal bevacizumab.

RESULTS

The difference between the mean best-corrected visual acuity at the baseline and that at 2 years in eyes with a subfoveal CNV was not significant. However, the mean best-corrected visual acuity in eyes with nonsubfoveal CNV was significantly improved from 0.53 ± 0.36 logarithm of the minimal angle of resolution units (Snellen 20/66) before intravitreal bevacizumab to 0.29 ± 0.36 logMAR units (Snellen 20/40) (P < 0.001) 2 years after intravitreal bevacizumab. The incidence of chorioretinal atrophy after 2 years was 3 of 49 (6.1%) in eyes with nonsubfoveal CNV and 21 of 26 (80.8%) in eyes with which subfoveal CNV (P < 0.001). Furthermore, the chorioretinal atrophy area with nonsubfoveal CNV was 0.05 ± 0.21 mm, which was also significantly smaller than that of subfoveal CNV at 1.76 ± 1.60 mm (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Intravitreal bevacizumab is a good treatment for eyes with nonsubfoveal CNV; however, another treatment is necessary for eyes with a subfoveally located CNV.

Choroidal neovascularization in pathological myopia

Myopic choroidal neovascularization (CNV) is one of the leading causes of visual impairment worldwide. The clinical and socioeconomic impact of myopic CNV in Asian countries is particularly significant due to rising trend in the prevalence and severity of pathological myopia. The exact pathogenesis of myopic CNV remains unclear and there is paucity of information with respect to incidence and risk factors for myopic CNV from prospective studies. Furthermore, there are no recognized measures that may prevent or delay the development of CNV in eyes with pathological myopia. Advances have been made in the diagnosis and characterization of myopic CNV over the years. Until recently, treatment modalities for myopic CNV were limited to thermal laser photocoagulation and photodynamic therapy with verteporfin, both these modalities primarily aim at prevention of further visual loss. In the last 5 years, inhibitors of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) have been used successfully and may improve vision to some extent. Nevertheless, the long-term safety and efficacy of anti-VEGF agents remains unknown. Furthermore, the risk of developing chorioretinal atrophy remains the key factor in determining the final visual outcome. This review article summarizes the current literature on myopic CNV, highlighting new evolving diagnostic and treatment modalities, prognostic factors influencing visual outcome, and areas of future research.

Characteristics of periconus choroidal neovascularization in pathologic myopia

PURPOSE

To examine the clinical characteristics of periconus choroidal neovascularizations (CNVs) in eyes with pathologic myopia.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational case series.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of 260 eyes of 254 patients with a myopic CNV and selected those with a periconus CNV. A periconus CNV was defined as a CNV that is located next to a myopic conus. To differentiate a periconus CNV from a subfoveal CNV that has expanded to the edge of the disc, eyes whose CNV involved the fovea were excluded. The data of the eyes with a subfoveal CNV were used for comparison.

RESULTS

Eleven eyes (4.2%) of 11 patients had a periconus CNV. These CNVs had a triangular or oval shape whose base was directed toward the myopic conus. The eyes with a periconus CNV had a significantly larger myopic conus than eyes with a subfoveal myopic CNV. The degree of myopia and axial length were not significantly associated with the incidence of periconus CNV. In 5 of the 11patients, the periconus CNV had a spontaneous regression without treatment, and none had a recurrence. The other 6 patients received treatment and obtained an angiographic closure after a single treatment. A chorioretinal atrophy (ChRA) developed in 3 eyes, and the ChRA enlarged over the fovea in 2 of these eyes, which led to a significant decrease of vision.

CONCLUSION

A periconus CNV is rare (4.2%) among the eyes with a myopic CNV and is more likely to develop in eyes with a large myopic conus. The absence of a significant association between the degree of myopia and incidence of periconus CNV suggests that the morphologic characteristics of the eye are not the causes of the periconus CNV. Although an angiographic closure can be easily attained with or without the treatment, the later development and progression of ChRA can impair vision.